first manifesto of the theatre of truth
thebarry
I would love to have everyone visit it, but I realize that time is very
limited. So I'm bringing a little bit of my website here.
I started working on the website at the urging of a friend of mine (who is
also an actor) and, of course, despite my diligent efforts, he has never
visited it either. He's very busy. He acts all the time. Everyone who is
an actor needs to do that, and he's doing it. Which is good. But I still
wish he'd visit.
At any rate, I would never have started this whole business except for him.
I don't think what I'm saying is special or different. On the contrary, I
think it's all been said before. But he (and others) have convinced me
that I have something to say, and have prompted me to say it. Thus the
website. And thus what follows.
In the posts I've made, I've referenced some of the ideas I outline below,
but in a much briefer form. If you read this post, I sincerely, sincerely
hope you will take the time to read it all. Please don't jerk your knees
and respond to it. I won't take the least bit of time defending what I've
written, but I will be happy to discuss the ideas in detail.
Also, please note that I copied and pasted what appears below. I don't
know why it came out looking so strangely. At least, it does to me. It
may not when it gets posted.
In addition, just to let you know, my background is almost entirely
theatrical. It's not that I don't have any experience in television or
film, but my experience is limited.
Without further ado:
First Manifesto of the Theatre of Truth
Theatre today, often the best of it, is filled with self-indulgent,
self-professed "artists" who insist on subjecting us to their constant and,
to be redundant, never-ending emotional masturbation. Are there more than
a handful of actors in the world who do not exist to say, with every fiber
of their beings, as they strut and fret their hours upon the stage, "Look
at me! Look at me!" Most acting -- and not just theatrical acting, but
film and television acting as well -- amounts to little more than pleas for
attention, statements of self-importance, and the need to be praised.
Every actor that ever took to the stage, for whatever reason, be it a lack
of effective parenting, a dysfunctional family life, or some genetic
predisposition, was possessed by this seemingly bottomless need for
attention and affirmation. No single thing more interferes with the
process of theatrical storytelling. Most actors do little more with their
time in rehearsal than think of ways to impress the audience, the director,
or the other actors, besides, of course, fumbling to remember their lines
and stumbling through their blocking. At some point, usually shortly
before technical rehearsals begin, they actually may know the lines and the
blocking, all the while assuming that their innate "artistry" or native
"talent" will see them through. Once they step onstage, their
"performance" consists of listening for cues and, once the cues are had,
spewing their emotional vitriol at anyone within earshot. Their
concentration is such that they are distracted by the ruffling of a program
page or a cough or sneeze or the fact that an audience member seems to be
looking at something other than them. Does the actor exist that is not
filled with excuses as to why something did or did not happen in a
rehearsal or a performance?
This infection, this disease, this plague, if you will, is the state of
acting today. What has brought us to it? What has brought us to the point
that acting is little more than a contest between and among vastly
overinflated "artistic" egos? The cause can be summed up in a single word:
Emotion.
Can you control your emotions? What we feel cannot be controlled any more
than the weather. Our capacity to empathize is one of the things that
separates us from other animals and makes us what we are: Human. If we
could control our emotions, we would be nothing more than mechanized
automatons. But this fact, this lack of control over our emotional lives,
is an actor's blessing because you need not feel a blessed thing in order
to give an effective performance of any character; that is, every
performance can be purely technical, without resort to emotionalizing of
any kind.
When we tell a story, what is our goal? The same as it has been from time
immemorial: To entertain an audience and, secondarily, to help them learn
about the human condition. Our goal should not be to give a brilliant
performance by laying bare our deepest emotions. What good will such
self-centered thinking do? Rather, we want to stir the audience's
emotions, whether it be to laughter, tears, or purely intellectual
pleasure. We want them to feel things, and if the actors are presenting
the story in an effective manner, the audience will feel things, no matter
what the actors feel. An actor, then, need not feel anything in
particular. Rather, the actor needs to understand what the character
wants, what the character is doing, and how those objectives and those
actions can effectively be expressed in a physical manner. The actor,
through his storytelling, provides an emotional "blank" for the audience to
fill.
How many times have we seen an actor so busy "feeling" things onstage that
we lose the very thread of the story that we came to see? Emotion is a
roadblock for the actor. Concentrating on "emotional expression" leads the
actor straight into the trap of the external. I consistently am amazed at
how much rhetoric in rehearsal centers around the emotions, around
something that we cannot control. It goes so far beyond the seemingly
innocuous, "What are you feeling here?" "Can you be angrier here?" "My
attitude is . . ." Things such as these do not totally lack value, but
their value lies only in the hints they can provide about what a character
wants, what a character is doing, or what the given circumstances of the
play are. Emotion is a given circumstance, like time and place, a fact on
the table for discussion. Emotion is not a tool, as are gesture, pitch,
tempo, rhythm, focus, action, objective. Emotion is a product. Emotion is
a result. When an audience watches a story being told, the audience
members are interested not in what the actors are feeling, but in what they
are doing and how what they are doing makes the audience feel.
Where did we lose our way? How did we fall into this emotional trap? How
can we escape?
There is a paradox about theatre and, by extension, about acting. It is
real, but it is not real. You are the character, but you are not the
character. The paradox is interesting, but like emotion, useless as a
tool. It points in the wrong direction. Thought of in this way, the
character becomes an item of clothing -- something that you put on and wear
and then discard when the curtain falls. A thing you hold at arm's length
and judge. A thing that never really touches your heart.
Any truly discerning individual must know that this is not the truth. You
are the character in no less the same way than you are yourself. When an
actor is playing Willie Loman, the actor is Willie Loman. And the proof of
this is simple. When I am in rehearsal and I say to the actors, "Point at
Willie," to whom do they point? And how can we then say that the actor
"playing" Willie is not Willie? You could say, "Well, the actor playing
Willie does not die, does he?" And my response would be, "That's right.
The actor playing Willie does not die. But Willie does. Find an audience
member that says Willie does not die." You are the character in exactly
the same way that you are yourself.
We all want things. We all do things to get the things we want. Every
day. Every waking moment of our lives, constantly moving through time and
space on our way forward. And every day we meet people who are doing
exactly the same thing. Every day we walk into rooms. Sometimes we know
who and what is there, sometimes we do not. But we always have
expectations, and we plan what we do around those expectations and enter
our rooms and execute our plans.
Theatre should be no different. We make a plan. In the case of theatre,
it is a detailed plan. Why? Because we can. We always do everything we
can do in life to help us achieve our objectives, so why not in the
theatre? Plan every gesture, every rhythm, every change of focus, every
movement, right down to the batting of an eyelash -- because we can. We
leave nothing to chance -- because we do not have to rely on chance. Then,
we go onstage and execute our plans -- to perfection. The same way every
time. Why? Because we can. If we could make our lives perfect, we would,
and in the theatre, we can. At least, we can attempt it. Perfection is,
of course, impossible, but striving for perfection is not. There is no
higher purpose, in life or in the theatre.
Thought of in this way, theatre is a great release, a great freedom. In
the theatre, we can achieve more than we can achieve in life outside the
theatre. The effectiveness of our performance is entirely in our hands.
We have only ourselves to rely on -- not the other actors, not the
audience, not the director. We do not have to depend on these others. We
can take sole responsibility for our actions. We make our plans, go
onstage, and execute perfectly. The same way every time. This may sound
dry, repetitive, staid, unexciting, lacking in spontaneity. On the
surface, perhaps. Every actor (and director) in the world wants
spontaneity. Every theatre practitioner wants the performance to be new,
spontaneous, as if for the first time, wants it to be real, wants to make
it happen.
Think clearly. Theatre is real. Theatre is happening. It is
three-dimensional. It moves through time and space. Theatre is not an
exercise in spontaneity, but in the appearance of spontaneity. So many
actors walk onstage after weeks of rehearsal and start doing something
different than what they have been doing. What were those weeks of
rehearsal for? Why did we waste all that time just to go onstage and do
something different? WE CANNOT MAKE THEATRE SPONTANEOUS! IT ISN'T! We
can, however, give theatre the appearance of spontaneity by concentrating
strictly on action and/or objective and listening; by making conscious
those things that we perform unconsciously every day.
In life, when we walk into a room, we want something. We may want many
things, but we usually concern ourselves with one thing at a time. And we
do what we have to do and say what we have to say (and saying is really a
kind of doing) in order to get that thing we want. As we do and say
things, the other people in the room do and say things in order to get the
things they want, and as they do and say things, we listen to and observe
them so that we perhaps can discern what it is they want and how we can
best use that to get what we want. Sometimes we get what we want, and when
we do, we move on to the next thing we want. But when we do not, we adjust
our actions and/or our objectives and we begin again.
THE THEATRE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIFE. We get into trouble because
we try to make the theatre different from life. As we move through life,
we rarely concentrate on what we are feeling, we concentrate on what we
want, and we make plans of action to get what we want. In the theatre, we
should do the same thing because THE THEATRE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM
LIFE -- with this slight exception (and, if you consider it, it is not
really an exception; rather, it is a natural conclusion): We have made a
complete plan. We know everything that we are going to do. Every gesture,
every focus change, every movement, every rhythm, every word, every thing
that we are going to do. And we have made this plan so that we can forget
about it -- in a sense.
Each of us has an internal monologue. It runs constantly, during our every
waking minute, every day of our lives. We constantly "talk" to ourselves.
Some of us never recognize our internal monologues. Some of us never are
honest with ourselves. Actors must be. With unerring vigilance, actors
must monitor their internal monologues, but in order to do this, we must
have a detailed plan. Without a plan, we cannot monitor our internal
monologues and put ourselves into action because we will always be
concentrating on what comes next. "What is the cue?" "What is the line?"
"Where do I go?" With a plan, we need not worry. When we walk onstage, we
can adjust our internal monologues and concentrate on the same things we
concentrate on, consciously or unconsciously, in life BECAUSE THE THEATRE
SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIFE. We concentrate on what we want and/or
how we are going to get it. And when we are not speaking or doing, we
actually listen to what that other is saying, we do not wait for a cue, we
do not anticipate what we are going to say next or what they are going to
say next, what the "lines" are, we actually listen, because in listening we
will be able to discern what it is the other wants from us and we will be
able to adjust our actions accordingly so that we can get what we want. We
allow the separation between ourselves and our characters, the separation
that we manufacture, the separation that does not, in truth, exist, to
disappear. We monitor our internal monologues and, when interfering
thoughts intrude, thoughts of "why isn't he doing what he did last night"
or "did I forget to turn the oven off" or "I forgot that gesture" or "is
everyone looking at me", we push those thoughts away with a phrase like "to
control my fears" or "to protect my country" or "to wield power" and we
listen to the other person onstage with us and we assume that our plan will
be there for us and we GET OUT OF THE WAY AND ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. There is
no more singly difficult thing to do in acting. There is no thing more
worth doing in acting. Because it sets you free. It sets you free.
We cannot make it happen. It happens. We cannot make it real. It is
real.
For so long, I have heard teachers and students and actors say that what we
want from an audience is for them to suspend their disbelief. How weak!
How ineffectual! "Oh please, won't you stop disbelieving me for a moment?"
No. We want them to believe. We want them to lose themselves in the
story we tell. We want them to forget themselves. We want them to listen
to and watch our story. This is what theatre is about, and the way to
achieve it is to believe ourselves; to lose ourselves by not ever losing
sight of ourselves; to listen to and watch each other.
Stanislavky said that acting is work on one's self. This is, without
question, the truth. At least, this is what acting should be. Most acting
is not. Most acting is work on the audience, or the director, or the other
actors, or the critics, or whoever or whatever it is that the actor most
wants to impress with the depth of his emotion and the breadth of his
artistry. And to let all that go, that need to impress, to attract
attention, to make certain that everyone is looking at you, in your
direction, making you the center of their world, to let all that go -- IT
SETS YOU FREE. It gives you peace. To sacrifice your ego on the altar of
character and story gets theatre back to its source, to its ritualistic
roots. The drum is the horse that the shaman rides into the other world.
Playing the drum opens a door through which the shaman rides and connects
to the gods. Like the shaman, the actor has an instrument to play. It is
himself.
Connection. We want to connect. With each other. With ourselves. With
the gods. We do not want to be alone. We want to make ourselves
understood. We want to understand ourselves. But in order to do that, we
must accept ourselves. We must accept each other. We must listen to
ourselves and each other. We must be who we are. We cannot be anything
else.
Be who you are. It is enough.
--
theb...@austintx.net
Chloe Ariane Whitehorn
defend it, but I think this needed to be said (even though I have been told
by my other actor friends that I should disregard your posts because they
truly distress me--but I probably will continue to be interested in what you
have to say). Just as you are entitled to your opinion, so are the rest of
us.
>In addition, just to let you know, my background is almost entirely
>theatrical. It's not that I don't have any experience in television or
>film, but my experience is limited.
to having limited experience with?
>Every actor that ever took to the stage, for whatever reason, be it a lack
>of effective parenting, a dysfunctional family life, or some genetic
>predisposition, was possessed by this seemingly bottomless need for
>attention and affirmation.
>Most actors do little more with their time in rehearsal than think of ways
to >impress the audience, the director, or the other actors, besides, of
course, >fumbling to remember their lines and stumbling through their
blocking
I hope you have done years of research in psychology and interviewed
thousands of actors to come up with this extremely generalized conclusion.
If you yourself feel this way or have only worked with actors like this, I
am sorry. It means you've never had a good experience acting.
>every performance can be purely technical, without resort to
emotionalizing of
>any kind.
I still don't understand why you would want it to be. Life, based on my
experience and most people I've encountered, is not about goals but about
emotion. Some people say money makes the world go around. Others think
it's love. So, yes, there is some disagreement here. But as living,
feeling creatures we experience emotion all the time. (I realize you don't
because you mention it later, but let's talk about that when it comes up).
>When we tell a story, what is our goal? The same as it has been from time
>immemorial: To entertain an audience and, secondarily, to help them learn
>about the human condition.
Which is...?
>Rather, we want to stir the audience's emotions, whether it be to laughter,
tears, >or purely intellectual pleasure. We want them to feel things,
Emotions maybe?
>and if the actors are presenting
>the story in an effective manner, the audience will feel things, no matter
>what the actors feel.
Possibly. However, the character (which you say is pretty much the same
thing as the actor) does feel. Every action comes from feeling. If the
character kills it is anger, mourns from sadness... If the character does
not feel they cannot express "the human condition" to the audience.
>The actor, through his storytelling, provides an emotional "blank" for the
audience to fill.
If you the actor project a blank to the audience, that is what they are
going to get. I've watched theatre where it was clear that the character
didn't have any feelings about their own life. Those are usually the
character audience member don't give a crap about, not even enough to cheer
if the character dies. It doesn't matter.
>How many times have we seen an actor so busy "feeling" things onstage that
>we lose the very thread of the story that we came to see?
True, if an actor gets completely self-absorbed on stage they lose the
audience. That's why actors usually have to keep a slight bit of awareness
of the fact that they are there for a purpose. That's where theatre and
life are different. Life you live, theatre you act.
> I consistently am amazed at
>how much rhetoric in rehearsal centers around the emotions, around
>something that we cannot control.
Another difference between life and acting. Perhaps we cannot control our
emotions in our lives, but because acting is staged, "planned" we can
control a bit of what happens and what emotions we, as actors, project on
stage. If you are on stage in perhaps a death scene and you, the actor,
are about to burst into laughter you attempt to control it if it isn't
appropriate for the character. Another example: hate your co-star but are
playing a love scene with them? You're there for the audience right? They
aren't going to appreciate the replacement of hate for love in that scene.
You control what you project. Feel whatever the hell you want to but
control what you show.
>Emotion is a product. Emotion is a result.
In life, yes. However, every actor has there own method. Some work back
from what the character should feel to understand how to get to that result.
It can be a tool.
> When an audience watches a story being told, the audience
>members are interested not in what the actors are feeling, but in what they
>are doing and how what they are doing makes the audience feel.
I personally am interested in what the characters are feeling--not
everything is an action/adventure story. I bet you all those people who
went back to see _Titanic_ a few times didn't just go for the action. A lot
of them were interested in the relationship that transpired, based on
emotions. If they didn't love each other there would be no story, just the
sinking. You could step back and watch and think, hey, its a big boat and
it's sinking and there are people on it. Or you can get involved witht the
characters and feel for them, with them.
I'm not saying this has ever been your experience. But for those people out
there who are aware of what they feel...
I'm a Buffy the Vampire fan. The last episode Buffy kills Angel (stay with
me here). Her "action" was killing him. I cried, not because she had
killed him but because I was aware of what Buffy was feeling, and it was
sad. She started crying a minute later. It wasn't her action of crying or
my own sadness over Angel's death that made me cry. It was that I was aware
of what she would be feeling because I cared enough to pay attention to her
emotions throughout the season, not just that one action.
> A thing you hold at arm's length and judge. A thing that never really
touches your heart.
I thought you were against having emotions involved.
>You are the character in no less the same way than you are yourself. When
an
>actor is playing Willie Loman, the actor is Willie Loman. You could say,
"Well, >the actor playing Willie does not die, does he?" And my response
would be, "That's right. The actor playing Willie does not die. But Willie
does. Find an audience member that says Willie does not die." You are the
character in exactly
>the same way that you are yourself.
This just goes back to the argument we were having awhile ago about acting
being imitation. You make the point above. The actor playing Willie
doesn't die, he just imitates it on stage. Because we weren't talking
about characters imitating things, just whether or not acting involved
imitation it is irrelevant whether the character Willie died or not. It is
the actor's actions, not the characters, that we are interested in.
>We make our plans, go onstage, and execute perfectly. The same way every
>time.
Good theatre does not do this. Ask people doing Broadway shows. After two
years doing the same show every night, some of them are still discovereing
things.
>As we move through life, we rarely concentrate on what we are feeling, we
>concentrate on what we want, and we make plans of action to get what we
want.
I'm aware of what I'm feeling almost all the time. Most creative people are
like that (that's why so many suffer from depression). The problem I have
more frequently is not knowing what I want. Generally, I know I want to
act, I know I want to be happy. How to get that though? I've been
miserable, knowing I wasn't happy but not knowing what it is I wanted,
what would make me happy. And don't just dismiss me as crazy because I know
a lot of people like that. Most of them are artists of some sort. None of
them are accountants.
>should do the same thing because THE THEATRE SHOULD BE NO >DIFFERENT FROM
LIFE -- with this slight exception (and, if you consider it, it is >not
really an exception; rather, it is a natural conclusion): We have made a
>complete plan. We know everything that we are going to do. Every gesture,
>every focus change, every movement, every rhythm, every word, every thing
>that we are going to do.
LIFE is not like that. I agree though that theatre should be a
representation of life, at least, parts of it. I guess it really matters
what your view of life is. If it's all about material goals, that's one
thing. If it's about experiencing life, that another.
>Each of us has an internal monologue. It runs constantly, during our every
>waking minute, every day of our lives. We constantly "talk" to ourselves.
It happens, not all the time. Usually when I'm walking down the street by
myself, sometimes during sex, rarely when my mind is otherwise occupied.
> actors must monitor their internal monologues, but in order to do this, we
must
>have a detailed plan. Without a plan, we cannot monitor our internal
>monologues and put ourselves into action because we will always be
>concentrating on what comes next. "What is the cue?" "What is the line?"
>"Where do I go?"
That is an internal monolgue. If theatre is real and you are not
concentrating on anything other than what is happening in your character's
life on stage you should be "monitoring what is happening around you. By
the way, in life, people do think, "what should I say next?"
>BECAUSE THE THEATRE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIFE
Except that life is relatively spontaneous, not completely planned (down to
the last gesture) and we act on feelings in life but in theatre emotions
should only be results. That is what you meant to say, right? Or was it
"theatre should be a very good imitation of life"?
>We monitor our internal monologues and, when interfering
>thoughts intrude, thoughts of "why isn't he doing what he did last night"
>or "did I forget to turn the oven off" or "I forgot that gesture" or "is
>everyone looking at me", we push those thoughts away with a phrase like "to
>control my fears" or "to protect my country" or "to wield power" and we
>listen to the other person onstage with us and we assume that our plan will
>be there for us and we GET OUT OF THE WAY AND ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.
So, these characters, in their lives, don't ever get distracted, or
wonder why everyone is looking at them? Because, that happens in life,
and "theatre should be no different from life", right?
>no more singly difficult thing to do in acting. There is no thing more
>worth doing in acting. Because it sets you free. It sets you free.
What does it set YOU free to do? Be exactly the same person (because "you
can only be you") but completely planned? Sounds fun...
>We cannot make it happen. It happens. We cannot make it real. It is
>real.
It is called acting. You do it, it does not do you. A play doesn't
happen on it's own, people (actors, directors, writers, costumers, set
deigners, and audience member) make it happen. And nothing is real unless
you make it part of your reality by believing in it. Sounds silly, that
tree is real whether I believe it or not. But you don't think film is real,
but the people who were part of the making of it think it is as real as you
think theatre is.
>For so long, I have heard teachers and students and actors say that what we
>want from an audience is for them to suspend their disbelief. How weak!
>How ineffectual! "Oh please, won't you stop disbelieving me for a moment?"
> No. We want them to believe.
Suspension of disbelief goes towards "please pretend with me that that
cardboard cut out of a house is really my house, that when I walk off stage
left that I am going to my friends house, not just into the wings." I
argue this just for the point. My own opinion differs. That suspension of
disbelief is why I think films are closer imitations to reality than
theatre. People believe their eyes. If it's cardboard it's cardboard until
I'm willing to believe it's something else. If it's a house I can spend my
energy believing the actors/characters, not the setting.
>Stanislavky said that acting is work on one's self. This is, without
>question, the truth.
Stanislavsky believed in using emotions. How about a reference that
supports your theories?
>Connection. We want to connect. With each other. With ourselves.
I connect with people through emotions not goals.
>We must be who we are.
Yes.
>We cannot be anything else.
Maybe not, but the creative ones of us out there can try.
> Be who you are. It is enough.
Unless of course you are an actor who wants to play more than one role.
Chloe
The Actor's Walk-Through
http://www1.kingston.net/~mermaid/html/the_actor_s_walk-through.html
Nathan Thomas
Some general reactions.
I appreciate the time and evident passion you have. It's your thinking
and your background/research that seems . . . . not as strong as your
passion. You argue against theatrical cliche'. Fine. You bring up the
actor's paradox which has been written about at length by others. OK.
But then you conclude that realism is the only answer. You argue for
full belief of the audience in the reality of the stage. What reality
can there be when 596 people are watching four people on a lighted,
raised platform? And, what if I don't desire people to be sweapt away
emotionally in a play? What if I want them to think ironically about a
situation? For example, during the Gulf War, what if I did King John in
such a way that people would think more critically about high-level
diplomacy and war and its effect on the lives of everyday people. If
such was the case, I may not want them to be sweapt away in the reality
of the story (for which there isn't any), but to think about issues.
Or, what if I play the doctor in "Death and the Maiden?" With my big
Act II speech, I may want people to feel attracted to the notion of
personal power, but then twist their recognition to the fact that they
*were* attracted to that level of personal power.
Also, you make some tired statements about how all humans think and
behave. I don't know. Sometimes people do have "blank" moments.
People don't necessarily have a goal every moment. The American version
of Stanislavski and realistic notion of character is so deep in our
bones, we scarcely realize it at times.
Again, I appreciate your work, but . . . .I'm looking for something new.
Best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
thebarry wrote:
[Much snipped for space.]
Dlollar67
agree with Chloe and we stand in a different place than you. Hope we can still
discuss good things on the group. But thanks for the post.
I hope you are willing to learn from your future experiences in the art, and I
hope you have many experiences to learn from.
Yours, from the other side of the aisle,
Lollar
thebarry
you for taking the time to respond to mine -- but I'm a little pushed for
time right now. However, I would like to offer some comments.
> Just as you are entitled to your opinion, so are the rest of
> us.
Absolutely.
> First, how can you make such conclusive statements about a medium you
admit
> to having limited experience with?
I didn't think I was. What conclusive statements are you referring to?
Certainly, I'm talking about acting, but all my references are almost
strictly about theatrical acting.
Although I do believe that many things about theatrical acting do transfer
to some extent into film and television acting. At least, I'm told so by
the film and television actors that I've worked with.
> I hope you have done years of research in psychology and interviewed
> thousands of actors to come up with this extremely generalized
conclusion.
No, but do I really need to? This is my opinion, and, as you said above, I
do have a right to it, whether you feel it is informed or not.
> If you yourself feel this way or have only worked with actors like this,
I
> am sorry. It means you've never had a good experience acting.
First you say that I have generalized, and now you are generalizing about
me. While I do have much, much experience with actors and theatre, you
have very little experience with me.
> I still don't understand why you would want it to be. Life, based on my
> experience and most people I've encountered, is not about goals but
about
> emotion.
Yes, and I don't reject emotion. I'm looking to prompt emotional response,
both in the theatre and in my writing.
> But as living,
> feeling creatures we experience emotion all the time. (I realize you
don't
> because you mention it later, but let's talk about that when it comes
up).
And you never returned to this point, really. And I'm surprised that you
would make the generalization that I don't feel emotion. I'm human, aren't
I? I think I am.
> >When we tell a story, what is our goal? The same as it has been from
time
> >immemorial: To entertain an audience and, secondarily, to help them
learn
> >about the human condition.
> Which is...?
Depends on the story.
> >Rather, we want to stir the audience's emotions, whether it be to
laughter,
> tears, >or purely intellectual pleasure. We want them to feel things,
> Emotions maybe?
Yes, I believe I just said, "We want to stir the audience's EMOTIONS."
> >and if the actors are presenting
> >the story in an effective manner, the audience will feel things, no
matter
> >what the actors feel.
> Possibly.
No, not possibly. They will. It is logical. I don't mean to sound like
Mr. Spock here, but it is.
> However, the character (which you say is pretty much the same
> thing as the actor) -
No, I said they are the same.
> - does feel. Every action comes from feeling.
I disagree. Every action comes from objective. I'm not writing to you
because I'm feeling things. I'm writing to you because I want something
from you, and it's really the same thing that I want from everybody when
I'm talking to them about acting. I want to help you as a performer.
Obviously, you are a performer. And, as far as I'm concerned, if you're
concentrating on emotion while you're acting, you're not helping yourself.
And yes, I know, you have a different opinion. I'm trying to change your
opinion. Another one of my objectives. I may be beating my head against a
brick wall. That's okay. It's not going to stop me. I've been beating my
head against this particular wall for a long time and it hasn't stopped me
yet. So, yes, I'm feeling things, but I'm not doing this because I'm
feeling things. I'm doing this because I want something. I want to change
your mind. That is my objective. My action is writing to you. My
obstacle is your belief that I am wrong. That creates dramatic tension.
Objective-Action-Obstacle. The great triumvirate. Just like in the
theatre.
> >The actor, through his storytelling, provides an emotional "blank" for
the
> audience to fill.
> If you the actor project a blank to the audience, that is what they are
> going to get.
That's not what I said.
> >How many times have we seen an actor so busy "feeling" things onstage
that
> >we lose the very thread of the story that we came to see?
> True, if an actor gets completely self-absorbed on stage they lose the
> audience. That's why actors usually have to keep a slight bit of
awareness
> of the fact that they are there for a purpose. That's where theatre and
> life are different. Life you live, theatre you act.
You seem to be implying that you are not "alive" while you are acting. I
know that's not what you mean, but it seems to be. And I think you're only
"acting" if you want to be. My point is that you should approach theatre
the way you approach life. There are things that you want in life, right?
And every day you do things to get those things you want, right? I'm
right, aren't I? I KNOW I am. If you were not this way, you would not be
human. You want something from me. You're doing something to get it. I
don't know what it is you want. Perhaps you want me to apologize. Perhaps
you want to change my mind. It doesn't matter what it actually is, but you
want something. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep responding.
> > I consistently am amazed at
> >how much rhetoric in rehearsal centers around the emotions, around
> >something that we cannot control.
> Another difference between life and acting. Perhaps we cannot control
our
> emotions in our lives, but because acting is staged, "planned" we can
> control a bit of what happens and what emotions we, as actors, project
on
> stage.
But that's the problem, as I see it. Trying to "project emotion". My
point is that you don't have to worry about it. I was rehearsing today
with an actor who is playing King Lear. He was trying very hard to "show"
me how angry he was with Cordelia. I suggested that, instead of laying so
much on the word "nothing," he try simply just saying the line and assume
that Shakespeare had already built enough into the story that the audience
would get it. And it worked. For me and for him and for the actress we
were rehearsing with.
> If you are on stage in perhaps a death scene and you, the actor,
> are about to burst into laughter you attempt to control it if it isn't
> appropriate for the character. Another example: hate your co-star but
are
> playing a love scene with them? You're there for the audience right?
They
> aren't going to appreciate the replacement of hate for love in that
scene.
> You control what you project.
Yes. We seem to be in agreement here. You make conscious decisions about
the things that you are going to do onstage and then you go onstage and act
on the decisions that you've made.
> Feel whatever the hell you want to but
> control what you show.
Yes. Control everything. We agree.
> >Emotion is a product. Emotion is a result.
> In life, yes. However, every actor has there own method. Some work
back
> from what the character should feel to understand how to get to that
result.
> It can be a tool.
Yes, a lot of people think it is, but it's not a tool that I think is
particularly effective.
To tell you the truth, I don't even think it's a tool. Analyzing a text
closely and making decisions based on that analysis are more effective than
trying to figure out what a character is feeling. What a character is
feeling has almost nothing to do with story. What a character is DOING has
everything to do with story. And that's what we are, whether we're in
theatre, film, or television. STORYTELLERS.
> > When an audience watches a story being told, the audience
> >members are interested not in what the actors are feeling, but in what
they
> >are doing and how what they are doing makes the audience feel.
> I personally am interested in what the characters are feeling--not
> everything is an action/adventure story. I bet you all those people who
> went back to see _Titanic_ a few times didn't just go for the action.
No, because it wasn't that interesting. But we could go on and on about
TITANIC and why people went back over and over to see it. It certainly
wasn't for those endless and ridiculous scenes of people running around
below decks.
> A lot
> of them were interested in the relationship that transpired, based on
> emotions.
Not me. I preferred Kate Winslet's performance and the special effects.
Leo was nothing special. I loved that shot after the boat sank, though.
Giving it an Oscar would have been a travesty without that shot. (Because,
you know, in terms of emotional involvement and plan old damn good original
storytelling, AS GOOD AS IT GETS blew TITANIC away.)
> If they didn't love each other there would be no story, just the
> sinking. You could step back and watch and think, hey, its a big boat
and
> it's sinking and there are people on it. Or you can get involved witht
the
> characters and feel for them, with them.
> I'm not saying this has ever been your experience.
Just to let you know, I cried at TITANIC. But I also cried at ARMAGEDDON.
Go figure.
> I'm a Buffy the Vampire fan. The last episode Buffy kills Angel (stay
with
> me here). Her "action" was killing him. I cried, not because she had
> killed him but because I was aware of what Buffy was feeling, and it was
> sad. She started crying a minute later. It wasn't her action of crying
or
> my own sadness over Angel's death that made me cry. It was that I was
aware
> of what she would be feeling because I cared enough to pay attention to
her
> emotions throughout the season, not just that one action.
Sorry. I've never seen it. Never even had the desire. Although I've seen
her act, though. It's amazing what they'll pay people money for.
> > A thing you hold at arm's length and judge. A thing that never really
> touches your heart.
> I thought you were against having emotions involved.
No, that's not what I said at all. Just a quick quote from my post, which
you quoted back at me above: "We want to stir the audience's emotions."
Now where exactly did I say that we aren't interested in emotion? You mean
the actor's emotions? They don't matter. If the actor feels something,
great. But it doesn't matter what the actor feels. It doesn't matter if
it's what the character is or isn't supposed to be feeling. I also said,
"Emotion is a fact on the table for discussion." I directed a production
of The Scotish Tragedy recently (I won't even say the title of that play on
a newgroup), and the main character's superobjective that we used was "to
control his fears". Of course, his fears were all externalized -- nature,
the witches, Banquo, Macduff, etc. -- but fear was the CONTROLLING EMOTION.
I think you misunderstand me. I hope not purposefully.
> >You are the character in no less the same way than you are yourself.
When
> an
> >actor is playing Willie Loman, the actor is Willie Loman. You could
say,
> "Well, >the actor playing Willie does not die, does he?" And my response
> would be, "That's right. The actor playing Willie does not die. But
Willie
> does. Find an audience member that says Willie does not die." You are
the
> character in exactly
> >the same way that you are yourself.
> This just goes back to the argument we were having awhile ago about
acting
> being imitation. You make the point above. The actor playing Willie
> doesn't die, he just imitates it on stage. Because we weren't talking
> about characters imitating things, just whether or not acting involved
> imitation it is irrelevant whether the character Willie died or not. It
is
> the actor's actions, not the characters, that we are interested in.
I never said the actor playing Willie dies. I said Willie dies. Everyone
knows it. The actor doesn't. Willie does. The actor is alive. Willie is
dead. Of course, the next night he's alive again, but that's because the
story starts again. It's a paradox, as I said, but a useless one. It
serves no purpose. What does serve a purpose is that you treat any
"character" that you are "playing" not as a "character" that you are
"playing" but as A PART OF YOU. Don't hold it arm's length. Don't see it
as something separate, like a suit of clothes. You are the character. The
character is you. This is utterly logical. Do you see it? There is no
separation. I refuse to believe I'm beating my head against a wall.
> >We make our plans, go onstage, and execute perfectly. The same way
every
> >time.
> Good theatre does not do this. Ask people doing Broadway shows. After
two
> years doing the same show every night, some of them are still
discovereing
> things.
And later in the manifesto I talk about how the plan changes. But
basically, my opinion is that you make a complete plan and you go onstage
and execute it. Part of the execution is "forgetting" the plan, in a
sense, and allowing yourself to really listen. You have the plan so that
you CAN really listen. So you don't have to WORRY about what comes next.
So you can throw all your concentration into doing what you're supposed to
be doing onstage, which is acting on your objective sand listening.
> >As we move through life, we rarely concentrate on what we are feeling,
we
> >concentrate on what we want, and we make plans of action to get what we
> want.
> I'm aware of what I'm feeling almost all the time. Most creative people
are
> like that (that's why so many suffer from depression). The problem I
have
> more frequently is not knowing what I want. Generally, I know I want to
> act, I know I want to be happy. How to get that though? I've been
> miserable, knowing I wasn't happy but not knowing what it is I wanted,
> what would make me happy. And don't just dismiss me as crazy because I
know
> a lot of people like that. Most of them are artists of some sort. None
of
> them are accountants.
I'm not dismissing you, am I?
>
> >should do the same thing because THE THEATRE SHOULD BE NO >DIFFERENT
FROM
> LIFE -- with this slight exception (and, if you consider it, it is >not
> really an exception; rather, it is a natural conclusion): We have made a
> >complete plan. We know everything that we are going to do. Every
gesture,
> >every focus change, every movement, every rhythm, every word, every
thing
> >that we are going to do.
> LIFE is not like that.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I said the opposite. Read it again.
> >Each of us has an internal monologue. It runs constantly, during our
every
> >waking minute, every day of our lives. We constantly "talk" to
ourselves.
> It happens, not all the time. Usually when I'm walking down the street
by
> myself, sometimes during sex, rarely when my mind is otherwise
occupied.
> > actors must monitor their internal monologues, but in order to do this,
we
> must
> >have a detailed plan. Without a plan, we cannot monitor our internal
> >monologues and put ourselves into action because we will always be
> >concentrating on what comes next. "What is the cue?" "What is the
line?"
> >"Where do I go?"
> That is an internal monolgue.
But not the kind that we have with ourselves in LIFE. Because the theatre
should be no different from life. We get into trouble because we try to
make it different. This is my character. This is my cue. This is my
costume.
> If theatre is real and you are not
> concentrating on anything other than what is happening in your
character's
> life on stage you should be "monitoring what is happening around you. By
> the way, in life, people do think, "what should I say next?"
>
>
> >BECAUSE THE THEATRE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIFE
> Except that life is relatively spontaneous, -
The key word being relatively. I agree.
> not completely planned (down to
> the last gesture)
No, but we do try.
> we act on feelings in life but in theatre emotions
> should only be results. That is what you meant to say, right?
No, I said exactly what I meant to say.
> >We monitor our internal monologues and, when interfering
> >thoughts intrude, thoughts of "why isn't he doing what he did last
night"
> >or "did I forget to turn the oven off" or "I forgot that gesture" or "is
> >everyone looking at me", we push those thoughts away with a phrase like
"to
> >control my fears" or "to protect my country" or "to wield power" and we
> >listen to the other person onstage with us and we assume that our plan
will
> >be there for us and we GET OUT OF THE WAY AND ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.
> So, these characters, in their lives, don't ever get distracted, or
> wonder why everyone is looking at them? Because, that happens in life,
> and "theatre should be no different from life", right?
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. The characters do
exactly what they do in the story. The characters don't have lives outside
the story being told. If they get distracted in the story and wonder why
everyone is looking at them, then that's what they do. And yes, the
theatre should be no different from life.
> >no more singly difficult thing to do in acting. There is no thing more
> >worth doing in acting. Because it sets you free. It sets you free.
> What does it set YOU free to do?
Act on your objectives and listen. Because you know the lines and the
gestures and the focus changes and the blocking, know them all so well that
you don't have to think about them. All you have to think about is what
you want and what you can do to get it.
>Be exactly the same person (because "you
> can only be you") but completely planned? Sounds fun...
IT IS.
> >We cannot make it happen. It happens. We cannot make it real. It is
> >real.
> It is called acting. You do it, it does not do you.
Very true.
> A play doesn't
> happen on it's own, people (actors, directors, writers, costumers,
set
> deigners, and audience member) make it happen. And nothing is real
unless
> you make it part of your reality by believing in it. Sounds silly, that
> tree is real whether I believe it or not. But you don't think film is
real --
Well, it isn't, is it? Film is real? Not logical. It isn't. It's
celluloid. But when I watch people acting in the theatre, I'm watching
flesh and blood moving through time and space. Not light and shadow
projected through a lens.
> but the people who were part of the making of it think it is as real as
you
> think theatre is.
I don't think it. I KNOW it. And I didn't say they weren't real when they
were making it. I'm saying the result isn't real. Because it isn't.
Again, It's light and shadow projected through a lens.
>
> >For so long, I have heard teachers and students and actors say that what
we
> >want from an audience is for them to suspend their disbelief. How weak!
> >How ineffectual! "Oh please, won't you stop disbelieving me for a
moment?"
> > No. We want them to believe.
> Suspension of disbelief goes towards "please pretend with me that that
> cardboard cut out of a house is really my house, that when I walk off
stage
> left that I am going to my friends house, not just into the wings." I
> argue this just for the point. My own opinion differs. That suspension
of
> disbelief is why I think films are closer imitations to reality than
> theatre. People believe their eyes. If it's cardboard it's cardboard
until
> I'm willing to believe it's something else. If it's a house I can spend
my
> energy believing the actors/characters, not the setting.
Yes, but in that case, people "suspend their disbelief" the moment they
walk into the theatre. They're already aware of the conventions. It's
BELIEF we want.
> >Stanislavky said that acting is work on one's self. This is, without
> >question, the truth.
> Stanislavsky believed in using emotions. How about a reference that
> supports your theories?
Look at the diagram that Harold Clurman and Stella Adler made after they
met with Stanislavsky. I'm not sure where you could find it, but it's out
there. (Anyone else seen it?) It's a diagram that looks like a big pipe
organ and at the base, in a little block, all alone there at the bottom, it
says "Work On One's Self."
>
> >Connection. We want to connect. With each other. With ourselves.
> I connect with people through emotions not goals.
>
> >We must be who we are.
> Yes.
I'm glad we agree. But then you go on to say . . .
> >We cannot be anything else.
> Maybe not, but the creative ones of us out there can try.
>
> > Be who you are. It is enough.
> Unless of course you are an actor who wants to play more than one role.
Chloe, I really wish you wouldn't make fun of me. I'm not making fun of
you.
And by the way, you can thank my wife for letting me write back to you.
She's been very good about granting me the time to do this.
And I'm glad you didn't listen to your actor friends. Thank you for the
response.
Barry
Chloe
ideas and completely different approaches to acting. I accept that and so
I'll stop arguing with you about it (difficult to do, but I'm sure it's
affecting my blood pressure, so...). I'm sorry I didn't understand exactly
what you were saying (I found too many contradictions) but I'm glad that the
discussion happened, if only so that everyone else could see the different
views and approaches and think about them rather than just accepting what
one person said. Anyways, I just had one more question (and I'm limiting
it to this part of tyhe dialogue so that I don't yell and scream and in a
last attempt to atleast SEE your point of view even if I won't agree with
it).
> What a character is feeling has almost nothing to do with story. What a
>character is DOING has everything to do with story.
I just don't understand how you can say this. Just to get it straight...
You are saying that what a CHARACTER feels is relatively unimportant to a
story, it's just a CHARACTER's actions that are really important? But
don't the actions stem from what he/she is feeling? And what about love
stories? Maybe yes the actions move the story along, but there wouldn't be
a story without those feelings. Nothing would happen in _Romeo and Juliet_
if there wasn't hate/love/passion/etc... What the characters feel have
EVERYTHING to do with the story. First, if the characters don't
acknowlegde those feelings there is no story. Second, if the actors don't
use those feelings (and I'm not saying that they actually have to FEEL those
emotions--they can pretend, hence act, to feel them) and aren't aware of
those feelings, their actions won't have any meaning.
If an actor presents actions to an audience and nothing else that goes with
those actions, the audience is going to see those actions. That's it. It
won't evoke any feeling in the audience (which you had said earlier was part
of theatre).
You can't dismiss emotions in terms of the characters or the actors, they
are as important to theatre as they are to life.
Last thought. I agree with you that you should be who you are (how can you
not be) but actors play roles of characters whom they're not--and they do it
quite effectively sometimes. Example, my sweet completely non-violent,
woman-loving boyfriend played Petrucchio in _Taming of the Shew_ (that would
be the abusive woman-hating asshole) and did an incredible job. He evoked
feeling in the audience, he frightened his mother, and he got rave
reviews. How did he do it? He acted. He pretended to be something he
wasn't. That is where the skill and talent part of acting comes in. If
acting was really just being yourself with a plan and scripted dialogue it
wouldn't require much more than memorization. And nobody would consider it
an art, or a craft, or even vaguely entertaining.
thebarry
a
> >character is DOING has everything to do with story.
>
> You are saying that what a CHARACTER feels is relatively unimportant to a
> story, it's just a CHARACTER's actions that are really important?
Yes. Well, for the most part. Actions are most important, yes.
Objectives are important too. And focus is oh-so-important (and almost
never mentioned in any acting text -- why is this?).
> But
> don't the actions stem from what he/she is feeling?
Well, sure, sometimes, but so what? Let's put it this way. Here's the
story of The Scotish Tragedy, or at least the beginning of it. Scene 1:
The witches meet on the heath and discuss when they will meet again. Scene
2: King Duncan is informed about the actions of his enemies and finds that
the title character of the play has served the king well. Scene 3: The
title character and Banquo meet the witches, where both the title character
learns that one day he will be king. Later, the title character is
informed that he is now the Thane of Cawdor, which was also predicted by
the witches. Scene 4: The title character meets the king, who thanks the
title character for his service. Scene 5: The title character's wife
learns of the witches predictions coming true and vows to make the
prediction about the the title character becoming king come true as well.
The title character arrives and they begin to make their plan to kill the
king.
Okay. Enough. Now I ask you: Are those the actions of the characters
that I described above? Of course they are. And don't get me wrong, I
don't think I even did it particularly well, but I don't think there's any
denying that what I described above is the story of the play, scene by
scene, and that the story of the play consists of characters in action.
"The witches meet . . ." "King Duncan is informed . . ." "The title
character and Banquo meet the witches . . ." Etc. At no point, not one
single point, do I mention emotion. I don't need to. Because it's
relatively -- and that is the key word here -- relatively unimportant.
> And what about love
> stories?
Are you familiar with ANNA CHRISTIE? I directed it once, a long time ago.
Without question, a love story. Let me give it a try. Again, I'm going to
oversimplify a bit. Scene 1: Marty and Kris arrive at the bar and have a
drink. Kris talks about how his daughter, Anna, is coming to see him. He
believes that Anna is good and pure. Kris leaves the bar. Scene 2: Anna
arrives. She and Marty get to know each other, and Marty discovers that
Anna has been a prostitute somewhere in the midwest. Kris returns, and he
invites Ann to stay on his ship. Scene 3: Anna discovers that she is at
home in the ocean and the fog. Scene 4: A sailor named Mat suddenly
appears on the boat, and Anna finds him attractive.
Okay, again, where is the emotion? I think that's a pretty good summary
(although I haven't read the play in years and directed it some ten years
ago). Not a sign of emotion, except in the "attractive" part. Again it's
all in the "story", the story being what the characters do.
> What the characters feel have
> EVERYTHING to do with the story.
No, not everything. You can have a story with no feelings at all. In
fact, I could probably go through the entire story of The Scotish Tragedy,
and practically any other play, without mentioning feelings or emotions
even once. Would it be particularly exciting? No, probably not. But plot
summaries aren't. We haven't come to see a plot summary, we've come to see
PEOPLE IN ACTION. Notice I didn't say PEOPLE FEELING THINGS. PEOPLE IN
ACTION. And of course they're feeling things -- they're people, not
robots. My point is that what they're feeling is relatively unimportant.
And I think that can be seen in the plot summaries above. You don't need
emotion to tell a story. You need plot. And plot most usually consists of
PEOPLE IN ACTION.
> First, if the characters don't
> acknowlegde those feelings there is no story.
Not true at all. See above. No question that those are stories. Not
particularly exciting, perhaps, but stories nevertheless.
> Second, if the actors don't
> use those feelings (and I'm not saying that they actually have to FEEL
those
> emotions--they can pretend, hence act, to feel them) and aren't aware
of
> those feelings, their actions won't have any meaning.
> If an actor presents actions to an audience and nothing else that goes
with
> those actions, the audience is going to see those actions. That's it.
It
> won't evoke any feeling in the audience (which you had said earlier was
part
> of theatre).
I disagree. If you are performing actions, no matter what you may be
feeling, the audience will "fill in the blank". I think it was Lollar that
said he didn't have to be a homicidal maniac to play a homicidal maniac,
and that's exactly true. You don't have to feel bloodlust to play it.
It's in the action, not in the emotion.
> You can't dismiss emotions in terms of the characters or the actors,
they
> are as important to theatre as they are to life.
I'm not dismissing them. I'm saying they're relatively unimportant. What
they are is given circumstances, which actually are important. But if we
have to establish a hierarchy, I place emotion very low on the totem pole.
As you can probably tell. I almost never discuss them.
> Last thought. I agree with you that you should be who you are (how can
you
> not be) -
Exactly.
> - but actors play roles of characters whom they're not -
But they are when they play them.
> --and they do it
> quite effectively sometimes.
Often. Anthony Hopkins in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS comes immediately to mind.
Probably because of that homicidal maniac stuff above.
> Example, my sweet completely non-violent,
> woman-loving boyfriend played Petrucchio in _Taming of the Shew_ (that
would
> be the abusive woman-hating asshole) -
Whoa. I think Petruchio loves women. In fact, I would say that Petruchio
unquestionably loves women.
> - and did an incredible job. He evoked
> feeling in the audience, he frightened his mother, and he got rave
> reviews.
Well, it's difficult for me to argue with this. I mean, I didn't see your
boyfriend perform. But I'll take your word for it. Take my word for it
and let me give you this example: I performed a role in a play in which it
was my goal -- outside of the obvious one, which is always to tell the
story effectively -- but it was my personal goal to give exactly the same
performance every time. Which I realize is impossible, but I was going to
give it my best shot. What made it pretty possible was the fact that I was
in only one scene in the play, but it was a very key scene. We had
twenty-four or so performances. I made my plan meticulously and went out
and executed it, for the most part, the same way every time. I know I did
because I checked it with the other actor in the scene and my wife, who
directed it and saw it quite often. I never blew a cue. I never dropped a
line. I never changed a gesture. Certain things did change, but these
were the changes that came about naturally as the other actor and I played
the scene and they consisted primarily of tempo and rhythm changes. Trust
me -- and this may be difficult for you, but I'm taking your word for it
(see above) -- trust me when I say I never "felt" a thing. In fact, most
of the time, what I was thinking about while I was onstage was my plan and
what came next. (This was a while ago. Now, I would make the plan and let
it be. Then, I made the plan and executed it. Listened for cues. All the
what I believe to be ineffective stuff that I've found most actors do.)
Not only did I get rave reviews, I won the local critics prize for
supporting actor in a play. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a great believer
in awards. But you used the example of reviews above, so I'm returnign to
it here. I did get the rave reviews, and I did win the critics prize.
(And I live in a pretty big city with a lot of live theatre.) And I know I
scared the living crap out of the audience every night because people
constantly told me I did. Now I ask you: If what a character is feeling
is so important, how was it that I was so effective in that role in that
play? I didn't feel a blessed thing. In fact, what I "felt" for the most
part was really hot -- the air conditioning in the theatre was really bad.
I suppose that was what the character was feeling, because I was the
character while I was feeling this. But I don't remember anything about
bad air conditioning in the script.
> How did he do it? He acted. He pretended to be something he
> wasn't.
But he was Petruchio while he was playing it. Wasn't he? If he wasn't,
then who was he? Himself and Petruchio. These are the only logical
answers. And he was only himself for those who knew him. For everyone
else, he was Petruchio. See the logic there?
> That is where the skill and talent part of acting comes in. If
> acting was really just being yourself -
Well, you can't be anything else, right? We've already agreed on that.
> with a plan and scripted dialogue it
> wouldn't require much more than memorization.
Oh do I ever disagree with that. In order to make the plan, you have to
have a highly developed sense of story and theme and how to communicate
those through movement and vocalization. You know this, I'm sure, as well
as I do.
> nd nobody would consider it
> an art, or a craft, or even vaguely entertaining.
Please see my comments on my prior performance above. That's simply not
true, Chloe. And I think you know it.
Thanks again for responding. And while there are those, I am sure, perhaps
even you, who see this entire exchange as one long, pointless argument, for
me, it has been a most stimulating discussion.
Barry
thebarry
And I appreciate the time you're taking to reply.
> It's your thinking
> and your background/research that seems . . . . not as strong as your
> passion.
Well, you can say what you like about my thinking, but trust me when I say
my background is pretty impeccable. I didn't bother with research, per se.
These are my opinions about theatre.
> You argue against theatrical cliche'. Fine. You bring up the
> actor's paradox which has been written about at length by others. OK.
> But then you conclude that realism is the only answer.
I don't use the word realism once. And I certainly don't come to that
conclusion.
> You argue for
> full belief of the audience in the reality of the stage. What reality
> can there be when 596 people are watching four people on a lighted,
> raised platform? And, what if I don't desire people to be sweapt away
> emotionally in a play? What if I want them to think ironically about a
> situation? For example, during the Gulf War, what if I did King John in
> such a way that people would think more critically about high-level
> diplomacy and war and its effect on the lives of everyday people. If
> such was the case, I may not want them to be sweapt away in the reality
> of the story (for which there isn't any), but to think about issues.
> Or, what if I play the doctor in "Death and the Maiden?" With my big
> Act II speech, I may want people to feel attracted to the notion of
> personal power, but then twist their recognition to the fact that they
> *were* attracted to that level of personal power.
Well, I don't care whether they're swept away emotionally or not as long as
they like the story. Where did you get the idea that I want people to be
swept away emotionally? I mean, it's nice if they are, but . . .
> Also, you make some tired statements about how all humans think and
> behave.
Tired statements? Gee, thanks. I thought the whole thing was fairly
energetic myself. And I'm not talking about "all humans". Most humans
aren't actors in the conventional sense of that word. I am talking about
all actors, and after working with hundreds and hundreds of them, 200
productions as an actor, 30 or so as a director, another 40 or so in other
capacities, including producer, technical director, set, lighting, and
costume designer, playwright, and curtain puller, getting a B.A. and an
M.F.A. -- amateurs, professionals, semi-professionals, teachers, students,
summer stock, repertory, you name it -- I think I'm as qualified as anyone
out there -- more qualified than most -- to talk about actors and the
reasons they do what they do.
And I don't argue for "the belief of the audience in the stage". I argue
for the reality of the stage. And I don't think there is any argument,
really. Can you deny that, as the production of a theatrical play occurs,
it is happening in real time? That those are flesh and blood people up
there, moving through time and space? Certainly, no question, there's no
argument. I'm surprised that this simple, simple idea seems to upset
people so much. The reality of the stage? Well, yeah. The stage is real,
and those are real people on it. The reality of a play? Yes, it's
happening, it's occurring, in a way that film and television cannot hope to
emulate. Ever. And probably wouldn't want to if they could. Because most
of the theatre I see isn't much to look at. But neither is most of the
television or most of the film.
> I don't know. Sometimes people do have "blank" moments.
> People don't necessarily have a goal every moment.
But we're not talking about people in life. We're talking about characters
in plays. And not only that, whether we know it or not, whether we are
willing to admit it to ourselves or not, whether we are really listening to
ourselves or not, we have a goal every moment that we live. Even when we
sleep, we're working on our goals.
> The American version
> of Stanislavski and realistic notion of character is so deep in our
> bones, we scarcely realize it at times.
It's interesting that you bring this up, and I'm assuming it's because of
my references to action, objective, and the man himself, but I've found
that the technique I try to help people learn works for things as disparate
as Shakespeare, Pinter, and impressionism. In fact, the style that it has
worked best with has been impressionism, but I think that had a lot to do
with the actors involved.
> Again, I appreciate your work, but . . . .I'm looking for something new.
I hope you find what you're looking for. In the meantime, I hope you keep
reading (and responding).
Best wishes to you as well.
Barry
eda...@my-dejanews.com
those who responded to you already!! I am Ed Schoenradt and have also done a
lot more theatre than film/tv. I wanted to mention first that you did not
leave your homepage address? I would like to see it as well.
Next.. I love being on stage want the audience to become fully eneloped in
what is going on on the stage. I want them to forget their problems for two
hours and take on mine!! Sometimes it will make them sad , sometimes feeling
good, either way it takes them away for a moment. When I am on stage ,I do
think about what my character is thinking, and feeling. I am that character,
yet I also am outside the scene observing what is going on(almost like
looking down on the stage) in order to compensate for slowness in the way it
is moving, timing if need be, and to cover someone elses line if need be. So
you do hear that cough or rustle of script, but you dont bring it into your
performance!
Well I dont want to go on too long. I love acting and I hope for the right
reason.. (it sure isn't for the money!..And by the way, why is it that it is
so difficult to make money at what we like to do, wether it is acting, an
artist or writing!! just wondering.
I would like for you out there to visit my web page as well, it has a link to
some of my writings as well. I would like any fedback on those.
Thanks again. I like these types of discussions.
My webpage... www.angelfire.com/co/coloradoactor
Ed
In article <01bdd2a9$0338c500$a4b1...@thebarry.austintx.net>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jim Brawn
> a
>
> No, not everything. You can have a story with no feelings at all. In
> fact, I could probably go through the entire story of The Scotish Tragedy,
> and practically any other play, without mentioning feelings or emotions
> even once. Would it be particularly exciting? No, probably not. But plot
> summaries aren't.
No, they aren't. But they ignore the motivation behind the action.
Without the emotion - the jealousy, the ambition, the fear, there is
no action and thus no play. Your attitude may work for Brechtian
theatre, but Shakespeare? Strindberg? Chekhov? I don't think so!
We haven't come to see a plot summary, we've come to see
> PEOPLE IN ACTION. Notice I didn't say PEOPLE FEELING THINGS.
Yes, I noticed. But what you ignore is the fact that it is emotion
that leads to action. And it is the emotion that makes the action
interesting. A man walking along a street who happens to step on an
ant is not interesting and is not going to attarct attention. A man
who hates ants with a passion, goes out of his way to stomp one and
grind it into the pavement on the other hand will attract attention.
It is the emotion that makes the difference.
You don't
need
> emotion to tell a story. You need plot. And plot most usually
consists of
> PEOPLE IN ACTION.
Sorry. (No, not really.) Plot consists of people motivated to act in a
given way by emotion. The emotion is what drives the plot. The action
is merely a side-effect.
>
> > First, if the characters don't
> > acknowlegde those feelings there is no story.
>
> Not true at all. See above. No question that those are stories.
Not
> particularly exciting, perhaps, but stories nevertheless.
Stories? Questionable. More like scientific observations.
>
> I disagree. If you are performing actions, no matter what you may
be
> feeling, the audience will "fill in the blank".
Without a framework of portrayed emotion at least, the audience will
have no idea of HOW to fill,in the blank. There must be a guideline.
Is the motivation for a killer jealousy? Fear? Hatred? Greed? Thes
will each call for different behvior and different actions. Again, the
emotion is what drives the action which as you have pointed out is
what drives the plot. Therefore, no emotion, no action, no plot!
I think it was
Lollar that
> said he didn't have to be a homicidal maniac to play a homicidal
maniac,
> and that's exactly true. You don't have to feel bloodlust to play
it.
No, but you must portray it.
> It's in the action, not in the emotion.
NO! The bloodlust IS the emotion. Without it, there is NO action to
perform.
>
> > with a plan and scripted dialogue it
> > wouldn't require much more than memorization.
>
> Oh do I ever disagree with that. In order to make the plan, you
have to
> have a highly developed sense of story and theme and how to
communicate
> those through movement and vocalization. You know this, I'm sure,
as well
> as I do.
Fascinating. That seems like a roundabout way of saying that you
prtray emotions becasue of a highly developed sense of story and
theme. (Movement and vocalization are guided by the emotional nature
of the character.)
--
Background! - The club for Actors and Background Performers in
Calgary
Don't miss my website, http://www.spots.ab.ca/~jimbrawn
Christopher Jahn
> We haven't come to see a plot summary, we've come to see
> > PEOPLE IN ACTION. Notice I didn't say PEOPLE FEELING THINGS.
>
> that leads to action.
I must disagree. Emotions are a reaction to stimulus. There aren't
"waves of emotion" floating through the ether waiting for us to
feel them. Your mother takes away your favorite toy; this makes
you angry, so you break the good china. So in this sense, emotions
lead to action, but they are a response to an event or circumstances.
And even here, the specific emotional response will vary depending
on the actor playing the role, and the emotionality of the other
actors on stage.
For example, the punished child may delicately take each plate and
drop it with great deliberation, savoring every instance. Or the child
may go into a frenzy of smashing things blindly.
This tendency to "play the mood" instead of "discovering through
process" results in a very mechanical kind of acting. "I'm angry so
I'll shout, I'm sad so I'll cry, I'm happy so I'll laugh"
Using your example of "hating ants", while deliberately stomping on
them makes a better story, it also stops short of discovery.
<stanislavski mode ON> Why do you hate ants? If it's a casual "oh,
just do", you may get an actor looking and stomping with good
concentration. But if, as a boy, the character was stung by fire ants,
he may approach it with a frenzy. He has to be sure to get every single
one or they will attack him! Or perhaps he sees stomping on them as a
game, so he displays a malevolent glee at the task.
Now I'll go Strasberg on you: what are the physical realities of
stepping on the ants? CAn you feel their little bodies crunch under
your shoe? Do they make a noise as you grind them? How do you feel
about that noise? Do you have to wipe their entrails from the soles of
your shoes? Is this an activity you're comfortable with? Do you try to
hide it, or do you proudly mangle them?
I have found, through experience, that discovering the emotion
through process gives many more interesting emotional shadings.
> Sorry. (No, not really.) Plot consists of people motivated to act in a
> given way by emotion. The emotion is what drives the plot. The action
> is merely a side-effect.
No.
Let's examine the plot of "No Exit". The plot is : three people
are locked in a room forever. Hmm, no emotions in the plot as
far as I can see.
Emotions drive the story, which is different from the plot.
IT is the reaction to being locked in the room, and their reactions
to each other, that bring forth the emotions that help to tell
the story. But it would be a terribly boring show if they sat their
and 'felt' things. They have to actively show us what they are
feeling. This action must have a purpose beyond showing us how they
feel.
"I'm angry so I'll bang on the door" doesn't make sense, it's not
enough.
Actions are driven by need: I need to get out of this room,
so I'll go to the door. Emotions color the action: I'm angry
at being trapped, so I stomp my feet and shove things out of my
way to get there.
And 'playing the mood' limits your palette of emotions. "I'm angry in
this scene, so I'll portray anger" vs "I'm locked in the room, and That
makes me angry: but I'm in Hell, and I cant get out (despair): These two
people don't understtand ( irritation): I'm strong enough to break the
chair (satisfaction): I have to get out! (terror): I hurt myself
trying to break the door (anguish)"
That's why just playing the emotion is a road to nowhere. The
emotions are discovered moment to moment through action and reaction,
not just floating around on stage pushing actors around.
--
** NOTE: address is spamblocked -
remove final 't' in address to reply **
==============================================
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
"I wish the stage were as narrow as the wire of a
tightrope dancer, so that no incompetent would dare
step upon it"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
Nathan Thomas
My actors are out on the road, so I havethe odd moment or two . . . .
thebarry wrote:
>
> Well, you can say what you like about my thinking, but trust me when I say
> my background is pretty impeccable. I didn't bother with research, per se.
> These are my opinions about theatre.
I don't question the right of people to have opinions, but on what is
the opinion based? I guess I get curmudgeonly as the years pass. I want
the opinions to be based in something. And your post in the reading
seemed to go in directions that evidently you hadn't thought through
*or* hadn't expressed with appropriate clarity. I apologise, because I
don't intend any flame by this, but the curmudgeon in me tires of some
of the stuff I read here as the "new" or the "truth" about theatre. If
the payoff isn't there, I get grumpy. . . . 8-)
>
> > You argue against theatrical cliche'. Fine. You bring up the
> > actor's paradox which has been written about at length by others. OK.
> > But then you conclude that realism is the only answer.
>
> I don't use the word realism once. And I certainly don't come to that
> conclusion.
Odd, for someone who uses 'real' and 'reality' as much as you do and for
someone who appears to argue strongly for the strong emotional
involvement of audience with the theatre event, why should a reader
*not* conclude an interest in realism?
[SNIP for space]
>
> Well, I don't care whether [the audience is] swept away emotionally or not as long as
> they like the story. Where did you get the idea that I want people to be
> swept away emotionally? I mean, it's nice if they are, but . . .
Again, considering the space given to talking about the audience
*believing* in the story and arguing *against* "suspension of disbelief"
as too weakly describing what should happen; what reasonable conclusion
should a reader reach?
>
> > Also, you make some tired statements about how all humans think and
> > behave.
>
> Tired statements? Gee, thanks. I thought the whole thing was fairly
> energetic myself. And I'm not talking about "all humans". Most humans
> aren't actors in the conventional sense of that word. I am talking about
> all actors, and after working with hundreds and hundreds of them, 200
> productions as an actor, 30 or so as a director, another 40 or so in other
> capacities, including producer, technical director, set, lighting, and
> costume designer, playwright, and curtain puller, getting a B.A. and an
> M.F.A. -- amateurs, professionals, semi-professionals, teachers, students,
> summer stock, repertory, you name it -- I think I'm as qualified as anyone
> out there -- more qualified than most -- to talk about actors and the
> reasons they do what they do.
Tired being equivalent to cliched. Would a reader be incorrect in
concluding that you believe that human beings work toward goals every
moment of their lives? If this is a correct understanding of what
you've written, how would a reader not conclude that you mean not only
actors, but all people? And what can you offer to show that this
statement is true not only for yourself or a group of human beings, but
is true for *all* humans at all times?
>
> And I don't argue for "the belief of the audience in the stage". I argue
> for the reality of the stage. And I don't think there is any argument,
> really. Can you deny that, as the production of a theatrical play occurs,
> it is happening in real time? That those are flesh and blood people up
> there, moving through time and space? Certainly, no question, there's no
> argument. I'm surprised that this simple, simple idea seems to upset
> people so much. The reality of the stage? Well, yeah. The stage is real,
> and those are real people on it. The reality of a play? Yes, it's
> happening, it's occurring, in a way that film and television cannot hope to
> emulate. Ever. And probably wouldn't want to if they could. Because most
> of the theatre I see isn't much to look at. But neither is most of the
> television or most of the film.
I have no quibble about the actuality of people moving and speaking in a
performance space. But that's a different statement than saying that
Romeo and Juliet are real. Do I misunderstand you when you say that
Romeo and Juliet are real?
(As to the second part of this paragraph -- I agree that acting cliches
are very strong. Working to get actors to act beyond cliche is an
on-going battle -- myself included. If actors didn't give up to cliche
so consistently; our theatre,film, and tv would be almost always easier
to watch.)
>
> > I don't know. Sometimes people do have "blank" moments.
> > People don't necessarily have a goal every moment.
>
> But we're not talking about people in life. We're talking about characters
> in plays. And not only that, whether we know it or not, whether we are
> willing to admit it to ourselves or not, whether we are really listening to
> ourselves or not, we have a goal every moment that we live. Even when we
> sleep, we're working on our goals.
As I wrote above, when you say "we" in this last sentence, is a reader
incorrect to conclude that you are writing about all humans at all
times? Or are you writing only about characters in plays? If you make
sweeping statements about universal human behavior, you shouldn't be
surprised that someone might disagree with you. (Oddly, when I sleep, I
sleep and I've not seen any research that shows that *all* people
*always* are working toward some goal whilst aslumbering. . .)
>
> > The American version
> > of Stanislavski and realistic notion of character is so deep in our
> > bones, we scarcely realize it at times.
>
> It's interesting that you bring this up, and I'm assuming it's because of
> my references to action, objective, and the man himself, but I've found
> that the technique I try to help people learn works for things as disparate
> as Shakespeare, Pinter, and impressionism. In fact, the style that it has
> worked best with has been impressionism, but I think that had a lot to do
> with the actors involved.
Well, given the historic dynamics of the growth and teaching of the
American 'take' of Stanislavski in America, how else would one regard
writing of action, objective, and so on? Surely you're not suggesting
that you've originated these concepts? And how is a reader to reach a
conclusion about "theatrical impressionism," except as a derivative of
realistic, character-based acting?
>
> > Again, I appreciate your work, but . . . .I'm looking for something new.
>
> I hope you find what you're looking for. In the meantime, I hope you keep
> reading (and responding).
>
> Best wishes to you as well.
>
> Barry
I may say that you haven't adressed the central idea of what's real
about theatre. A performer actually moving on the performance space is
an actuality. But it'd be a sweet piece of thinking and/or writing to
convince me that Romeo is real. Romeo, as a fictional construct, can
not exist in time and space, as I understand fiction and as I'm given to
understand time and space. How else should we understand fiction or
time and space to solve this riddle?
Best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
thebarry
as I would very much like to. If I get some more time this weekend, I
will, but I wanted at least to respond to the following:
> I may say that you haven't adressed the central idea of what's real
> about theatre. A performer actually moving on the performance space is
> an actuality.
Yes. No question that the performer is real. Yes.
> But it'd be a sweet piece of thinking and/or writing to
> convince me that Romeo is real.
I'm going to give it a try. This should be fun for us both.
> Romeo, as a fictional construct, can
> not exist in time and space, as I understand fiction and as I'm given to
> understand time and space. How else should we understand fiction or
> time and space to solve this riddle?
I think I have addressed these ideas, but perhaps not as clearly as I
could. OK, we're watching ROMEO AND JULIET. An actor is playing Romeo.
Is Romeo real? Well, the actor certainly is, and if you accept the fact --
and I know this is a tough one, but I also know that it can be done -- if
you accept the fact that the actor IS Romeo for the time the actor is
playing Romeo (certainly, there is no question that, for the audience, the
actor is Romeo -- and, of course, is also the actor himself -- here we go
with the paradox again, but we can resolve it, really, we can), then Romeo,
without question, is real. To me, this is a logical conclusion. All of
the "characters" are "real" in the sense that they are all flesh and blood
moving through time and space as we watch them, in the same way that the
story is "real" (and yes, I'm aware that I'm using quotes around "real" and
making it seem as if "real" is not "real", but I understand that this
concept goes way beyond what is conventional and accepted -- even
acceptable -- theatrical, or even story-based, thinking).
For me -- and I may be all alone here, but that's okay -- for me, theatre,
at its best, is not "theatre" because it OCCURS in the sense that it is
moving through time and space and is as real as the audience that sits and
breathes and watches it occur. So, SO often, I have found that the
problems that actors experience in trying to perform a character is that
they are separating the character from themselves. I want to break down
the separation between the actor and the character by helping the actor
realize that, really, THERE IS NO SEPARATION. The actor and the character
are one, the same. What I attempt to do in my work is to get the actor to
focus strictly on himself and the other people onstage. Is that possible?
Can it actually be done? Probably not. But what if it could? What if an
actor could go onstage and ACTIVATE his performance in such a way that,
instead of waiting for cues and gesturing and thinking about the nest line,
etc., the actor ACTUALLY LISTENED, as he listens in life, DOES NOT
ANTICIPATE what comes next, despite having the knowledge of it -- actually
lived the performance? This is my goal -- to help actors achieve this kind
of "performance" -- a performance that is not a performance, but that is an
OCCURRENCE. I haven't done it, but in at least one instance, I know I and
an actor have come very, very close. And it was absolutely thrilling. By
far the most thrilling thing that has happened to me in my life in the
theatre.
For me, theatre, when it really works, IS REAL, whether it be realism,
impressionism, tragicomedy, comedy, musicals, whatever pigeonhole you can
place something in. IT OCCURS. When I see theatre at its best, it is not
"story". It is an occurrence. It happens. It is real. As real as me.
As real as you.
And as always, only the best to all.
Barry
thebarry
> leave your homepage address? I would like to see it as well.
Thanks for asking, Ed. It follows:
http://members.tripod.com/~thebarry/index.html
>
>
It's not anything particularly special in terms of the visual. It's a lot
of writing and theorizing is all.
I wish I had more time to respond to what you've said. Hopefully, this
weekend, I'll have more. Thanks for the post.
Barry
Chloe
thebarry wrote in message <01bdd3cb$c7a5de00
> I think it was Lollar that
>said he didn't have to be a homicidal maniac to play a homicidal maniac,
>and that's exactly true. You don't have to feel bloodlust to play it.
Actually it was me and I said I wasn't a pychotic killer but I did a very
good job of playing one, and we weren't talking about emotion and feeling
at the time (believe me, that role involved it) we were talking about you
thinking that you can't be something that you're not and me disagreeing with
you. Thank you for finally seeing it my way.
Chloe
Christopher Jahn wrote in message <35EB3567...@bellsouth.nett>...
>Jim Brawn wrote:
>> We haven't come to see a plot summary, we've come to see
>> > PEOPLE IN ACTION. Notice I didn't say PEOPLE FEELING THINGS.
>>
>> that leads to action.
>
>I must disagree. Emotions are a reaction to stimulus. There aren't
>"waves of emotion" floating through the ether waiting for us to
>feel them. Your mother takes away your favorite toy; this makes
>you angry, so you break the good china. So in this sense, emotions
>lead to action, but they are a response to an event or circumstances.
>And even here, the specific emotional response will vary depending
>on the actor playing the role,
Your entire post talks about how stuff happens to characters and they react
to them (feeling things) and take action. Yes, emotions are a response to
an event or circumstance. And yes there are actions involved. But no
matter how many people try to argue against it, none of them have managed
to say that actions just happen, because they can't.
The example used by someone talking about the "scottish Play" (just bloody
call it MACBETH, we're not on stage now) giving a plot summary was
pathetic. Audiences don't come for a plot summary. Yes, Macbeth has
Macduff's family killed. And yes, Macduff kills Macbeth. Yes, those are
actions. BUT, the first action Macduff's family being killed affects
Macduff and his anger/pain (EMOTIONS/FEELINGS) lead to the second action
happening.
Can we just all please agree that BOTH actions and emotions are involved/a
part of the story/play/theatrical experience or whatever you want to call
it?
Christopher Jahn
>
> Christopher Jahn wrote in message <35EB3567...@bellsouth.nett>...
> >Jim Brawn wrote:
> >> > PEOPLE IN ACTION. Notice I didn't say PEOPLE FEELING THINGS.
> >>
> >> that leads to action.
> >
> >"waves of emotion" floating through the ether waiting for us to
> >feel them.
>
> to them (feeling things) and take action. Yes, emotions are a response to
> an event or circumstance. And yes there are actions involved. But no
> matter how many people try to argue against it, none of them have managed
> to say that actions just happen, because they can't.
> part of the story/play/theatrical experience or whatever you want to call
> it?
Absolutely. The point I was making was that you can't can't get
there by focusing on the emotions. There is a process that brings
the play to life, and it isn't "in this scene I'm happy, and in
this one I'm angry". THAT leads to a very flat and artificial
performance.
Nathan Thomas
One last word on this thread.
I don't buy it. You solve the paradox of actor psychology by ignoring
the problem completely. Well, I suppose that'sone way to deal with a
problem, but I find it fairly unsatisfying. You write that the actor
*is* Romeo. Well, no. The actor is the actor. Romeo as a fictional
construct is dead, dead, dead at the end of the play. No room for a
sequel. The nice young man playing Romeo goes out and has a brew with
his buddies at the end of the play. The audience may not care much
about the private life of the actor they see. But it would be
border-line psychosis to truly believe that this young man was
transported in a time warp and died at the end of the 20th century. The
reality of *this* scenerio (were it possible) makes me a little uneasy.
And likewise, the psychology of an actor who truly believes he's Romeo
-- I'd want him in the care of a trained professional.
And by the way, in an earlier post you wrote that you weren't
necessarily advocating realism. Yet, this morning I read, "Because, to
be redundant in terms of the other posts I've made on here, the theatre
should be no different from life." Hmmmmmmm. . . . Well, if it waddles
like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . . . 8-)
Look. If someone wants me not to only to buy a bridge, but to risk my
life by driving over it, I want to check out the weight supports. If
there ain't no support, I probably won't buy the bridge -- and I sure
ain't gonna drive over it.
Best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
thebarry wrote:
> > Romeo, as a fictional construct, can
> > not exist in time and space, as I understand fiction and as I'm given to
> > understand time and space. How else should we understand fiction or
> > time and space to solve this riddle?
>
Il professore
>But what you ignore is the fact that it is emotion
>that leads to action.
I highly applaud your defense of the need for emotion in theatre. Brecht
was not against sentiment, he was sentimentality. Everyone who saw his great
actors at work commented on their power to evoke emotion in the viewer.
I would like to remind you that one of Stanislavski's greatest discoveries
was that action leads to emotion, never the other way around. He said that
if you have a significant action to do which you believe in and "act" as if
your life depended on it, emotion will follow as a result of that action.